What did you learn?

What have I learned this semester hmm? Well there’s been so much that I can’t think of it all. For instance I consider myself to be fairly technologically savvy, but when it comes to Professor Packansky-Brock, it seems as if she’s got a bit of an edge on everyone. I mean voicethreads and blog posts alone were probably two inadvertent things that I learned that I am grateful for. Besides all that, you’ve also got all the art stuff (O, ya that right?). Well, I started this class as an art appreciator and had enjoyment out of exploring and looking in my own way, but this class has taught me quite a bit on how to analyze dissect, and really just look even deeper to find meaning whether it be a personal one or a generalized one that many people share. Moreover I think that one thing I really learned that I will value for the rest of my life, is that ability to examine something on a deeper level than want is present. This goes for anything in life from examining a situation with people, all the way too looking into a problem and how it occurred. What I’m talking about her is deeper examination. Basically doing beneath the surface to see why something the way it is. Now this isn’t the way art is all the time, but the exercise of it I have learned from this class. I’ve also learned about how to examine art. You can’t really narrow many things down when talking about art, but one thing you can narrow down to a definitive answer would be who what where and when. Obviously the why was left out because of the obscurity of the question, but the other four can be defined if they’ve been recorded. These four questions tell you a lot about the artist, and what they were doing at that point in time. I also learned about how to answer the question that many people ponder…..”What is art”? Again, you’re not usually going to have a definitive answer with this one, but I think that you can summarize the question within a fairly precise manner. Basically to me art is the process or action of expressing yourself through a medium that others can perceive. This could be through anything. Obviously it’s probably one of the most general answers I’ve given in my life…..but this is the truth, at least to me. I’ve also learned about spontaneity. I used to be a pretty measured kind of guy. By that I mean that everything would be planned out and pre-meditated. Now, for example when I write this blog, I just let it all spill out. The thing I like about blogs is that there’s ways to express yourself in an academic way, that…well just really isn’t possible in many other academic settings. So the easiest way to explain that is that when I “blog” I don’t do any revision, I don’t worry about grammar and punctuation…I just get the idea out regardless of how lame or uneducated it may sound. So ya, spontaneity….which can eventually be refined into a great idea or paper or whatever, but ya. Basically just getting things out, expressing what you feel, and just allowing it to come out. Yep you can say I learned a lot in this course…..maybe not as much as some may like on an art basis, but definitely a lot about myself and lifelong lessons that can be molded into extremely useful tools….or rules to live by?

-Shawn

Conceptual Art.

In my opinion conceptual art has to do with not only the physical aspects of visual stimulus, but also with what intrigues the mind. Conceptual art has to do with creating something that will evoke unique thinking. By that I mean that basically (and obviously) it’s all open to interpretation. Even more so than other forms of art, Conceptual art will definitely have different meanings to different people. Personally I like conceptual art because I am a fan of the saying that “your language shapes your reality”….basically the bigger vocabulary you have (more ways to express one’s thoughts), and the more open your mind is, the better understanding or better description you can give. Personally I enjoy conceptual art because it inspires creativity, not only by the artist, but also for the viewer. What could this symbolize or mean…..is this all just random stuff and the artist wants you to come up with an idea? Yes I believe it is a combination of the two. Througout the week, I tried to think of a piece that I enjoyed (conceptual that is), but my mind kept coming back to Professor Packansky Brock’s paper about her trip to SFMOMA. I really liked the piece that she talks about where Yoko Ono places a phone in one of her exhibits, and had sent out the number to a random person and had them call it. Neither people on either end of the phone knew what was going on…..anyway that is the definition of conceptual art to me. I’ve never seen this piece or even heard of it until now, yet I feel a connection to it (or I think I do). I believe that this piece is conceptual because it breaks the boundaries of where art is or where it’s gone, and opens two people’s lives up to each other that have never spoken to each other….ever. I guess I also like the idea, and how creative it was. I really enjoyed that. So I guess it’s pretty obvious that yes I enjoy conceptual art. It’s not only intriguing, but also get your mind working. Sometimes people get stuck in the same thinking pattern, routine, whatever you want to call it. It’s deffinetly good to break that mold, and also to exercise your mind, which you can do every time when analyzing a new work or even pondering the question what is art? Or, is that art?

My Visit To The Crocker Art Museum

For my art visit, I went to the Crocker Art Museum in Sacramento California on a bright and sunny day, April 7th, 2008. Currently (1/26-4/20/2008), the Crocker Art Museum has an exhibition on England born Edwin Deakin. Ok, so the visit itself was probably the first time I’ve attended an actual art gallery and stood back and analyzed the art with a critical eye. This visit was very interesting to me because it definitely helped me gain some perspective on art first off by size. The first question for this assignment asks how viewing art in person is different from viewing and learning about art through a textbook or computer screen. While viewing works through a computer screen or even in a text, I find myself rendering everything as if it may not actually look like that in person. Of course this is something I do subconsciously, but have finally realized that in person works are much larger, usually look much better, and can even carry over and “awe” effect that isn’t as easy through a screen or book. So yes, the size of most painting are rather large when compared to what you may be thinking of while viewing them over a screen or book. Secondly the detail and different angles you can pick up while in person. On a screen or in a book these images are always two dimensional, but in person these are all three-dimensional. Now the Crocker Art museum always seems to have these huge magnificent frames around the works, which sometimes I thought, took away from the art, but these are things that you can’t tell as easily through a picture. I mean the frame on some of the works almost blended in as if it was part of the work itself, or some protruded a bit too much to too far and took away from the piece (this was less common). Other things to point out about learning and viewing art in person rather than out of a text or computer is that in person there is a weird feeling that comes over me. Sometimes it feels weird to know that the artist actually created that work and that you are inches away from it. For instance when I visited the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art I felt a weird feeling when I stood in front of a Picasso or a Warhol…..it’s almost like that person has been in that room before or if you touch it (secretly of course), that you’ve touched something that an infamous artist has touched. Either way this is something that you cannot get out of a textbook or computer screen. Learning about art in person is a fundamental tool of actually analyzing a piece, because often times the piece will look or feel completely different when you actually see it in person. One of my favorite works while on the visit came in the form of a “master sketch”. Now I believe I remember seeing this while in the museum but didn’t record the information, so I found it on Crocker’s website and took my information from there. The work is called “A Roman Landscape” and was created by Johann Heinrich Roos. This work was created with red chalk of traces of graphite on cream laid paper. I was instantly attracted to this work because of uniqueness of the sketch. For me, it is not common to see a sketch done with any color, let alone red for almost the entire thing. Also I really enjoy landscapes when they include appealing architecture. Now in this sketch you have the roman-like columns on the top of a hill that seems to almost disintegrate as the hill flows lower and closer to the viewer. I especially like how it seems as if this is a work in progress. Sometimes I actually enjoy the sketches more than the final product. Why? Because I like to see something evolve over time rather than this is it, it’s done. This sketch looks as if things could be added or taken away and it would still be appealing to me. I also like the way that the shading is conveyed along with the ethic/vintage look the red creates. That’s just me though. This piece is also 19x14in, so not the biggest painting, but certainly bigger than I would think by looking at this on the computer. My reflections on this visit are very positive. I remember going to the Crocker Art Museum as a child in fourth or fifth grade, but haven’t had much recollection on it since then. After visiting for this project, I’ve found that this museum although small, is a gem in Sacramento. I especially like the fact that it doesn’t take all day, but that at the end, the location is prime for getting something to eat and enjoying the day. I also loved the architecture of the building, the vintage mansion look. The color scheme also played off very well for Deakin’s exhibition. I loved the way that he had some landscapes that appeared darker than others, and it really matched the dark greens with the gold accents and the hardwood floors. Things that I didn’t like about the museum were mostly just inconveniences. I wish it had a café’ like the San Francisco Museum of Modern art, and I also wish that there were more exhibits; the Crocker Art Museum is very small. Overall this experience was very fun and rewarding, and finally got me to actually visit a gallery. Most of the time in the past I’ve had the interest of going into a gallery, but never actually done it. This trip was very fun, rewarding and also extremely enjoyable. If you ever get a chance I would highly recommend this.

Two Worlds Collide

With Aziz Cucher I get a sense that his work is done to exemplify what the end of the lecture was about. Not only are the faces in dystopia not completely recognizable, but they are also distorted in a way that makes them almost ugly or scary looking. I believe that this was done as a type of movement to say that people don’t look the way they look in media…..in person. Basically it seems as if he’s smeared eyes mouths and other sections of the head to make people more uniform. Human is human basically. Ummm, I also believe that Aziz’s work has to do conformity or something like it. Everyone has a mouth eyes and ears, maybe his work has to do with bringing people down to a level that they are all now recognizable as the same life forms?

*Ok, so manipulated digital images. Who isn’t guilty of it in this generation. How many people have you met from mysapce or some other social networking site that actually look the way they do on their page? The answer for me is nearly no one. I believe that this stems from how people naturally interact and want to be perceived. I can say with not much doubt that most people want to be liked (or considered attractive). So when selecting pictures, do they select the pictures where they feel they look the best or worse? In my opinion people want to look good so they’re going to select pictures that they feel they look good in. From there, people with the know how would probably color correct the image which would be a form of digital manipulation and then begin to tweak themselves if they feel it needs it. This is hit basically head on in the lecture in that our examples (magazines, TV etc.) has been polluted with celebrities and people who don’t look how they look in their photo shoots or movies. I guess the sting of it is that newer generations are beginning to think that this is the only way…..they can’t see that it’s fake and thus not real. This is a shame because it’s leading to people seeing themselves as inadequate or not perfect the way they are now. It’s about compromise and if you can’t love yourself the way you are…..in the end your just a conformist. HAVE BIGGER BOOBS, BE SKINNY OR DIE. Basically. It’s a joke and I feel people need to spend less time with this pop culture crap and reality tv, and realize that there is more ways than just the “cool” or popular way. Bottom line these examples put up on tv etc. are changing our society to expect people to look sound and act a certain way. To me this isn’t healthy. All that being said, I’m definetly guilty of some of these things, even envious at times, but I believe that the fact that I can recognize it helps me to sort of break the trend or at least see what’s really going on rather than….OBEY or something of that nature. (sorry, this was my rough draft just to get my ideas out……could be better, my apologies)

My "Favorite" Painting

Hmmm, ok so for my “favorite painting” I decided more on an artist than on an actual painting itself. The painting pictured along with this blog post is actually my favorite of many shown at an exhibit in New York City at the Jonathan Levine Gallery 6/19/2007. The exhibited artist: Shepard Fairey. This show was called “E Plurbis Venom”. Shepard Fairey is best known for his Guerilla marketing campaigns as well as his iconic street art that has gotten him to where he is today. Shepard does almost all of his work with stencils and spray paint. For instance on the work I’ve presented here, Shepard used stencils for the majority of the work. I believe that the exception here would be the work around the picture itself (meant to look like US currency design) which I beleive has been printed. Either way this work is absolute genius to me. It may not be your brush and stroke type of painting, but it is a “painting” none the less. Spray paint definitely has a different look feel texture and durability than any of the paints discussed in our class. That being said, spray paint is very hard to control, thus the use of stencils for the majority of its uses in Shepard’s work. Spray paint can also be used without stencils, just not in the work I’ve presented here. Shepard Fairey is also well known for his depiction of Andre the Giant in his logo/branding for the company Obey. If you examine Shepard’s work, it is plain to see that his style consists of repeated imagery, iconic pictures, figures, and the use of silhouettes. Shepard uses these attributes to demand your attention, which is most likely why he’s been contracted out by major corporations such as Pepsi, and even done movie posters and cd covers for some of his favorite artists. Back to this work; I would say that the paint in combination with the bordering print can almost qualify as a collage even though it doesn’t look like your standard collage. On top of that Shepard Fairey has many works where actual newspaper collage has been worked in and faded or hidden. Although Shepard isn’t by any means your classical painter or producer, he definitely is a contemporary artist that can be looked at as a modern day artist. I still don’t know if most would call him a painter, but he does paint with spray paint and does create art……so to me he is a modern day painter. Finally I would like to invite anyone reading this post to feel free to do a simple google image search on Shepard Fairey. He has some of the most thought provoking art, at least for me. For instance read everything in the picture I’ve presented right down to how he spells it. What does it all mean……and the color scheme? Japanese sunrise for the background (reminiscent of the Japanese Kamikaze style headbands etc.) Anyway, just wanted to get the word out about Shepard Fairey. Check it out

Thomas Kinkade.

Is Thomas Kinkade an artist or a money grubbing sell-out? I believe this question can be answered both yes and no for both. For the first portion of the question (artist?) I believe that the answer is obviously yes to some extent. I believe that what has made Thomas Kinkade so popular is the obvious skill he has at conveying a landscape so exquisitely. He really has mastered the art of translating light through a paintbrush and does have an extreme talent in creating such a realistic work. Thomas Kinkade is also a relative master of detail. Some of his works look so realistic that from a distance, many would probably think they were looking at a picture. Another reason Thomas Kinkade can be looked at as an artist is the fact that he paints and creates period. Regardless of the fact that he makes loads of cash, paints to the appeal of his purchasers, and seems to be a bit of a prick, the man is still an “artist” who produces artwork..

However having said all that, I do not believe that Thomas Kinkade is an artist in every sense of the word. Actually I believe the only reason I still consider him to be an artist is because he paints on canvas with a brush and paint….basically he is still producing works of art. Any other medium and it would be a lot easier to discredit his artist-ness (I joke I joke). To me an artist in the truest sense of the word would always do what they wanted how they wanted regardless of how well it sold. THEY WOULD EXPRESS THEMSELVES THROUGH WHATEVER MEDIUM NECESSARY AND NEVER LOOK BACK. Artists are innovators, and Thomas Kinkade is not. Now no one can know what Mr. Kinkade is actually thinking (besides himself), but I would wager to say that after painting hundreds of landscapes and sceneries that I would be relatively bored of painting the same sort of subject with the same sort of style. Translation: The only logical reason he is creating the same thing over and over is because it works (sells). I believe that Professor Pacansky-Brock hit it dead on when she wrote that reviewing history shows us that no artist maintained the same sort of style throughout their entire career.

Which brings me to why Thomas Kinkade is the poster child for the western capitalist mindset. Basically Mr. Kinkade found (or had?) something that people wanted, and found a way to make a bunch of money off of it. Is he a fraud? Yes (selling prints that have paint applied over them?). Is he a sell out in every sense of the word(s)? Yes. The fact that he has leeched his way into becoming a household name for non-educated art collectors is absolutely despicable. Basically what I’m trying to say is that technically Kinkade is an artist, but to me he’s just another crooked executive type that define success by only one thing. MONEY!!!

Analyze That!

This piece is simply amazing. I’m not sure of the artist, but I have seen similar works done like this that are done on a flat surface, but look entirely 3-d. The line shown here is that of a genius. It utilizes straight lines that actually line up with lines that are on or in the street that help add to it’s optical illusion. The color here is utilized in a dynamic way by accenting itself off of the otherwise drab, “boring” colors of the asphalt. This helps to make the image itself pop and come out at you also adding to the optical illusion. Within this work I believe that texture is an important element for two reasons. The first is that this work is depicting a woman in a pool extending her leg upwards. The work displays several different textures including water or liquid, smoothness from the tiles that make up the pool, and also the soft supple texture of the woman that is in the pool. One thing that subtracts from the works reality is the mass of the woman. As you can tell there are people walking near this work of art and a person actually standing on part of it. It’s pretty easy to tell that the woman is a lot bigger than she normally would be if drawn to scale. Another key concept that makes this piece more believable is the use of the overlap. When this work was created, overlap had to be accounted for when drawing the depth of the pool and the sandals, and all the things that are floating. Obviously the space and light depicted are right on with what the artist was trying to accomplish. The space occupied totally tricks your mind into thinking that there’s real depth there, and the light looks like it would be from summer time in the heat of the day. This piece is very interesting and a work of art in itself!

-Shawn

Analyze This!

http://www.towson.edu/heartfield/art/superman.html

Watch the magic

Light & Color

For this assignment I decided to use an object with complimentary colors (green/red) that could express light differences with the simplest of change. The object used is a mask that I’ve kept since I was a kid (of Raphael from the Ninja Turtles). I placed it in between two boards of a fence and snapped away. The reason I chose to display it on a fence was quite simple. The fence is aged and brown which to me has a more somber or depressing value when held up against a bright animated “toy” that perfectly resembles a child-like feeling (for me the value is different because than most because I remember playing with anything and everything Ninja Turtles).

The first picture was taken at approximately 11:45 AM with perfectly clear skies. The picture is perfectly lit with a hint of overexposure in the middle of the mask. In this picture the masks’ colors “pop” so loudly that a quick glance might trick someone into thinking that a cartoon has been superimposed over an actual picture. In this picture I captured the exact expression I was going for which was bright colors against dull morose ones. The browns, blacks and grays of the fence seem to react in a clashing manner that almost compliments the greens, reds and whites of the mask.

The second picture was taken around 3:45 PM with perfectly clear skies. This picture brings out an entirely different effect of the mask and setting with a simple dash of shadow and much warmer colors. Digital camera’s have an odd way of rendering color when the sun isn’t perfectly over an object. With my digital camera I find that when the sun is in upward or downward motion, you get warmer colors whereas when the sun is directly above you (the first picture), everything seems colder or more “stale”. The second picture gives the mask more character and even changes its value for me. If you compare the two pictures, the lighting changes so much. In the first picture the mask almost looks flat like it’s painted or stuck on the fence with no outward protrusion. In the second photo the mask is obviously three dimensional and looks like it’s coming out at you. Unfortunately between the two photos, the mask fell out of the fence, so for the second picture the masks aren’t in the same exact place, but the shadow exemplifies this idea.

My favorite word for the first picture would be sterile because to me the picture has more cool colors and leaves me feeling stagnant, without a connection to my past. I guess this wouldn't make sense to most since my value of the mask is obviously different from yours. My favorite word for the second picture would be synchronicity because it resonates a youthful memory within a mature (real) setting.….it fills the void that separates me from adult to child.

Line & Space.

Wow. I never thought that something so simple could have such a profound effect on how I look at things on a day to day basis. I remember after reading the first chapter about line that I paused and took about 10 minutes just studying random lines in my room. I guess what I'm starting to learn is that the elements of art are not necessarily that obscure or difficult. The foundations of art extremely basic, it's all about how you use them. After reading the chapter about space I had a similar effect, but it did take longer to set in. For some reason I have a harder time connecting with the element of space, but I do enjoy works where artist utilize it effectively. For example I loved Matisse, Durer and Rubens, but had a more difficult time understanding Gygli. Also, space is harder for me to see or understand in real life than line. I guess space requires more three dimensional thinking? The easiest way for me to see "space" (or at least the way it would be if painted/drawn etc.), is for me to imagine that I am going to attempt to draw what I am looking at, because everything that I see is usually three dimensional. Linear perspective is another element that requires some creative thinking (or untapped consciousness) for me to see or notice without aid. Examples that I can think of are: looking down a road, looking into a drawer that's fully extended, or looking at the angles of the inside of a building. Contour lines are probably the most difficult for me to see at work in real life. While simple in usage and definition, I can't seem to wrap myself around the fact that the line isn't actually a line, rather something that defines volume? The most apparent representation I've found of this seems to come from glares, and or the line that a glass full of liquid makes?? And yes, my surroundings do actually seem as if they are getting more interesting. The thing is that I get so distracted or am so busy that I don't seem to notice it. But, if I stop for a second and try to think about some basic elements or art (the simplest is line!), then I can start to sit back and recognize things that I did not before.......I guess it's thinking more like an artist who is about to recreate something on a canvas.